At the level of granularity implied by this diagram we would not
normally assign cardinalities.
Frank
On Thursday, October 2, 2003, at 02:47 PM, Olivier Fehr wrote:
> As I can see from the model, it just states 'message has messages
> path'.
> No indication of multiplicity (I think that's the right term in UML).
> There can be several of these message paths, so may this can be
> interpreted as being either or both?
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: www-ws-arch-request@w3.org [mailto:www-ws-arch-request@w3.org] On
> Behalf Of Anders W. Tell
> Sent: jeudi, 2. octobre 2003 23:37
> To: Francis McCabe
> Cc: www-ws-arch@w3.org
>
>
> Francis,
>
> There is difference between prescribed mesage path and actual message
> path (runtime), both may be of interest. Is this something that fits
> into the model ?
>
> /anders
>
> Francis McCabe wrote:
>
>> This diagram represents an attempt to partially refactor the Message
>> Oriented Model.
>>
>> The essential difference here is to bring out that messages have
>> originators and ultimate recipients as well as senders and receivers;
>> and the structure of the message is closer to the SOAP model.
>>
>> It also brings out the role of the message transport a little more
>> clearly.
>>
>> Some notes:
>>
>> 1. Originator and ultimate recipient of a message are really
>> service-oriented concepts.
>> 2. Correlation is a general concept, that applies elsewhere. The
>> general version of this is `counts-as' (as in this message counts as
>> the reply to your earlier message).
>> 3. What is not captured here is the idea of a message processing
>> model. Is that necessary? It should be covered to some extent in the
>> written text
>>
>> Comments would be welcome
>>
>>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
> -
>>
>
>
>